preview

Should The Articles Of Confederation Or Write A New Constitution

Decent Essays

In 1787, a group of fifty-five American delegates, met in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to attend the Constitutional Convention to work out problems with the way the country was run. This involved improving and revising the old Articles of Confederation. Instead of revising the Articles of Confederation to make the government work better, the delegates came up with a plan for a new form of government, the United States Constitution. During the writing and ratifying of the Constitution, there were some fundamental issues being debated. The main debate was about whether to amend the Articles of Confederation or write a new constitution. James Madison, a member of the Virginia Assembly, moved the convention along but proposing a document he had drafted called the Virginia Plan. The Virginia Plan created a central republican form of government. The government would consist of the legislative, executive and judicial branch. It …show more content…

Delegates feared that the national government would have too much power over the states. William Paterson came up with the New Jersey Plan. The Plan proposed for changes in the Articles of Confederation that would let Congress regulate trade and tax imports, but would maintain state power. The New Jersey Plan proposed a single legislature, a government that relied on the authority of the state governments, more than one executive and one vote of legislation for each state. The plan allowed each state to keep its independence. The plan did not stop the states from violating foreign treaties, or from entering into treaties, or wars. James Madison was against the New Jersey Plan. Madison insisted that the New Jersey Plan did not improve any of the flaws of the Articles of Confederation. The Virginia Plan was finally approved as the plan to be used to construct the new government. The approval of the Virginia Plan meant that the delegates were now committed to creating a new

Get Access